Another Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA

[rightwinger]

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

My partner, and legal spouse, is the stay at home parent in our family. Why isn't she entitled to my survivor benefits?

Your "spouse" should be legal.

End of story. Artificial insemination of single women also shouldn't be allowed.

Well.......A lot of us think you should not be allowed to breed

 

[g5000]

Survivors Planner: A Special Lump-Sum Death Benefit

A surviving widow or widower may be eligible to receive a special death benefit payment of $255 on the worker's record. This payment can be made only to a spouse or minor children who meet certain requirements. Generally, this is how it applies:

First, the surviving spouse who was living in the same household with the worker when he or she died can receive the lump-sum payment.

No children required.

.

 

[Valerie]

If they are paying into Social Security, they are already entitled to benefits, moron. The only way making gay marriage legal would change anything is if one of them wasn't paying into Social Security. He would still be entitled to survivor benefits. Why should an adult male who never paid a dime into the program be entitled to any benefits?

Because an adult female who is married is entitled to those benefits

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

derrr Thanks for demonstrating how extremely dumb you are...




All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[g5000]

A surviving disabled spouse may also receive monthly Social Security death benefits: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10008.html

Some of the deceased's family members may be able to receive Social Security benefits if the deceased person worked long enough under Social Security to qualify for benefits. You should get in touch with Social Security as soon as you can to make sure the family receives all of the benefits to which it may be entitled. Please read the following information carefully to learn what benefits may be available.

•A one-time payment of $255 can be paid to the surviving spouse if he or she was living with the deceased; or, if living apart, was receiving certain Social Security benefits on the deceased's record. If there is no surviving spouse, the payment is made to a child who is eligible for benefits on the deceased's record in the month of death.

•Certain family members may be eligible to receive monthly benefits, including:
◦A widow or widower age 60 or older (age 50 or older if disabled);
◦A widow or widower at any age who is caring for the deceased's child under age 16 or disabled;
◦An unmarried child of the deceased who is:
■Younger than age 18 (or up to age 19 if he or she is a full-time student in an elementary or secondary school); or
■Age 18 or older with a disability that began before age 22;
◦A stepchild, grandchild, stepgrandchild or adopted child under certain circumstances;
◦Parents, age 62 or older, who were dependent on the deceased for at least half of their support; and
◦A surviving divorced spouse, under certain circumstances.

These are but some of the cash and prizes federal law awards to married people who have been paying into the system. There is no offspring requirement for the widow or widower who receives these benefits.

Federal law.

Equal protection.

Figure it out.


.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If we are going to do selective breeding, we begin with sterilization of libertarians, which is exactly what the weirder among them would do those parts of the population they consider resource unfriendly.

 

[Valerie]

Being lefthanded is abnormal....but it doesn't harm anyone

Neither does Homosexuality

Agreed. Excellent example. Neither homosexuals nor lefties should be discriminated against by government. And neither is entitled to perks for it either.

Nobody is asking for or receiving "perks" for being gay. We should be equally entitled to them, including for our consenting adult relationships if we choose to have them legally recognized.

That always cracks me up when people claim gays are just "looking for perks". A lot of people are pretty dumb on this topic, but what are you gonna do? Oh, God forbid you stand up for yourself!

The federal government does not recognize any marriage between two people of the same sex for purposes of federal law or benefits.

A 1997 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found 1,049 federal rights and benefits conveyed to married couples under existing law. In 2004, the office revised this number to over 1,100. Among the federal rights conferred by marriage are:

ability to file a joint tax return
ability to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes
Social Security and military survivor benefits
access to military stores
assumption of a spouse's pension
visitation of a partner in the hospital or in prison
sick leave to care for a spouse


State law provides hundreds of additional benefits to married partners, which may include:

automatic inheritance
exemption from estate tax and vehicle transfer tax
lease transfer
burial determination
immunity from testifying against a spouse
joint bankruptcy
divorce protections
child custody benefits
access to wrongful death benefits or crime victim benefits


Marriage :: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania

 

[rightwinger]

If we are going to do selective breeding, we begin with sterilization of libertarians, which is exactly what the weirder among them would do those parts of the population they consider resource unfriendly.

I don't think they need to be sterilized....they are pretty impotent as it is

 

[WorldWatcher]

So....she's entitled only if she's a homemaker and a mother?

Yes, both conditions must be met and only if the child for the mother part was conceived with the husband.

Nothing else qualifies as a family including if she was the mother of adopted children since she would not have been the biological mother.



Nope, she would not meet the requirement of procreation.

Too bad for her?

Yes.



>>>>

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children do not make a family, a husband and wife are not a family, only biological mothers & fathers with children (ya I know that's redundant) can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. No new Civil Marriages will be allowed without medical proof of fertility for both participants at the time the license is issued.
5. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

 

[Ravi]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, both conditions must be met and only if the child for the mother part was conceived with the husband.

Nothing else qualifies as a family including if she was the mother of adopted children since she would not have been the biological mother.



Nope, she would not meet the requirement of procreation.




Yes.



>>>>

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children do not make a family, a husband and wife are not a family, only biological mothers & fathers with children (ya I know that's redundant) can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Whoa. I used to think you were a sensible person.

I have two cousins that were adopted. They and their adopted parents are certainly a family. The "biological" parents could be bothered to raise them.


Anyway, your opinion is meaningless. A spouse qualifies for survivor benefits, childless or not.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Yes, both conditions must be met and only if the child for the mother part was conceived with the husband.

Nothing else qualifies as a family including if she was the mother of adopted children since she would not have been the biological mother.



Nope, she would not meet the requirement of procreation.




Yes.



>>>>

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children to no make a family, only biological mothers and fathers can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Is this how you begin your thought process before posting?

 

[WorldWatcher]

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children to no make a family, only biological mothers and fathers can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Is this how you begin your thought process before posting?

Isn't that the premise though of what some have been saying in this thread?

1. Marriage exists for procreation.
2. The only structure that exists that is a family is the biological father and biological mother living in the same house with a biological child.
3. Adoption does not make a family because one or both of the parents has no biological intermingling of DNA in the child.​

Are not my statements the natural outgrowth of those conditions as stated in this thread?



>>>>

 

[Valerie]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

Of course, the anti-gay crusaders don't live in the real world, they just think liberty means having the equal freedom to live your life just like they do... You know, all perfect and shit..without broken marriages and infidelity and abuse and all that other icky stuff they pretend is all the gay people's fault...

 

[Cheddarmelon]

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children to no make a family, only biological mothers and fathers can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Is this how you begin your thought process before posting?

Isn't that the premise though of what some have been saying in this thread?

1. Marriage exists for procreation.
2. The only structure that exists that is a family is the biological father and biological mother living in the same house with a biological child.
3. Adoption does not make a family because one or both of the parents has no biological intermingling of DNA in the child.​

Are not my statements the natural outgrowth of those conditions as stated in this thread?



>>>>

Your statements are the natural outgrowth of stupidity.

 

[Ravi]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

Of course, the anti-gay crusaders don't live in the real world, they just think liberty means having the equal freedom to live your life just like they do... You know, all perfect and shit..without broken marriages and infidelity and abuse and all that other icky stuff they pretend is all the gay people's fault...

Yeah, true enough. But in my time on message boards, I have slowly seen this anti-gay thinking diminish and that is a good thing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>


Come midnight of November 6th, many heads will explode as the first Same-sex Civil marriages are approved at the ballot box.


>>>>

 

[Valerie]

I read that one of the people involved in this lawsuit was an 83 year old woman who had to pay over $300K in estate taxes because her spouse was a female. If her spouse had been a male she would have paid nothing.

It is mind-boggling that the Libertarians support this travesty of justice, ESPECIALLY when it includes an unfair tax burden.

Of course, the anti-gay crusaders don't live in the real world, they just think liberty means having the equal freedom to live your life just like they do... You know, all perfect and shit..without broken marriages and infidelity and abuse and all that other icky stuff they pretend is all the gay people's fault...

Yeah, true enough. But in my time on message boards, I have slowly seen this anti-gay thinking diminish and that is a good thing.

Those who care about Liberty would certainly hope so, but I see Billy Graham recently put in his two cents... um err millions of dollars of ads appealing to the emotion of religious voters...

The most famous and revered pastor in America, Billy Graham, is calling on voters to cast a ballot for their faith in full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and other newspapers.

Graham's picture appears prominently in the ads, next to copy that reads, "As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last."

It continues, "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God."

The ad hit the prominent papers Wednesday and Thursday, and could hit a dozen more newspapers, a week after the famed evangelist met with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at Graham's Montreat, North Carolina, home and less than a month after his son Franklin Graham issued a full-throated endorsement of Romney in a USA Today opinion piece.

Billy Graham buys election ads after Romney meeting – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

 

[Ravi]

Of course, the anti-gay crusaders don't live in the real world, they just think liberty means having the equal freedom to live your life just like they do... You know, all perfect and shit..without broken marriages and infidelity and abuse and all that other icky stuff they pretend is all the gay people's fault...

Yeah, true enough. But in my time on message boards, I have slowly seen this anti-gay thinking diminish and that is a good thing.

Those who care about Liberty would certainly hope so, but I see Billy Graham recently put in his two cents... um err millions of dollars of ads appealing to the emotion of religious voters...

The most famous and revered pastor in America, Billy Graham, is calling on voters to cast a ballot for their faith in full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and other newspapers.

Graham's picture appears prominently in the ads, next to copy that reads, "As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last."

It continues, "I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God."

The ad hit the prominent papers Wednesday and Thursday, and could hit a dozen more newspapers, a week after the famed evangelist met with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney at Graham's Montreat, North Carolina, home and less than a month after his son Franklin Graham issued a full-throated endorsement of Romney in a USA Today opinion piece.

Billy Graham buys election ads after Romney meeting – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Ironic, when you realize that even though Israel doesn't approve of same-sex marriage:

Same-sex couples in Israel enjoy most of the rights of married couples, as do unmarried heterosexual couples, and the 2006 Court decision allows married same-sex couples the same tax breaks as opposite-sex married couples, as well as the legal right to adopt children

.

from wikipedia

 

[Seawytch]

She's entitled to them only because she's been a wife, a homemaker and mother her entire adult life. What has the fuck buddy of some gay pervert been doing all his life if he hasn't been working?

My partner, and legal spouse, is the stay at home parent in our family. Why isn't she entitled to my survivor benefits?

Your "spouse" should be legal.

She is...in CA. The point is she should be my legal spouse in all 50 states AND recognized by the Federal government. That's the point of overturning the unconstitutional DOMA.

End of story. Artificial insemination of single women also shouldn't be allowed.

Whew...good thing you don't make the laws.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no requirement of procreation for getting survival benefits.

There should be. Marriage is about procreation and children.

Adopted children do not make a family, a husband and wife are not a family, only biological mothers & fathers with children (ya I know that's redundant) can make a family.


All the benefits currently afforded to married couples should be stopped for those that don't meet the following conditions:

1. A DNA to show parentage of existing children.
2. There must be at least one biological offspring of the mother and father in the home to qualify, adopted children don't count.
3. Within 60 days all Civilly Married couples must provide proof of fertility to remain married.
4. If within 5 years of the Civil Marriage date no biological offspring have been produced then the marriage is automatically annulled on the grounds of biologic incompatibility.​

>>>>

Whoa. I used to think you were a sensible person.

I have two cousins that were adopted. They and their adopted parents are certainly a family. The "biological" parents could be bothered to raise them.


Anyway, your opinion is meaningless. A spouse qualifies for survivor benefits, childless or not.

He is being sarcastic.